J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) This judgment will dispose of Civil Revisions Nos. 13, 49 and 1405 of 1975 as both of them arise out of the same order.
(2.) Tenant-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Jullundur dated Sept. 29, 1975, whereby the order of the Rent Controller, dismissing the application for ejectment has been set aside and the ejectment of the petitioner has been allowed.
(3.) Virender Kumar, landlord-respondent filed the ejectment application stating that Tek Chand and Tarlok Chand were owners of the rented land in dispute and Pritam Singh, tenant-petitioner took the same on rent from them at a monthly rental of Rs. 20. Those persons sold this land to Virender Kumar on Nov. 8, 1967. Thus Pritam Singh became a tenant under him on the same terms and conditions. The ejectment was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent and for unauthorised construction over the rented land, thus materially impairing the value and utility of the same. It was also stated that Pritam Singh had sub-let the premises with Des Raj (respondent No. 2) without the written consent of the landlord and that the rented land in question was bona fide required by the landlord for his personal use as he wants to run his own business and trade, he being not in possession of any other such rented land in the urban area concerned Pritam Singh as well as Des Raj both contested this petition and on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : l. Whether the application in the present form is not maintainable ? 2. Whether the respondents are liable to ejectment on the grounds as mentioned in para 3 of the application ? 3. Whether any notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was required to be served on respondent No. 12. It so, its effect ? 4. Whether the petitioner is estopped by his act, conduct and behaviour from filing the present application as alleged in the written statement of the respondent No. 2 ? 5. Whether the application is collusive, if so, its effect 6. Whether the Rent Controller has got no jurisdiction to try this application ? 7. Whether the petitioner is the landlord of the property in dispute ? and 8. Whether respondent No. 2 got the portion of the premises in question with the written consent of the previous landlord. If so, its effect ?;